CONDON’S CORNER

An Overdeveloped World Doesn’t Support Wildlife

 

© Marlene A. Condon 2026 All Rights Reserved 

  [Published July 9, 2026, by The Daily Progress, the daily newspaper of Charlottesville, Virginia and published July 11, 2026, by The News Virginian, the daily newspaper of Waynesboro, Virginia.] 

Black Knapweed (Centaurea nigra), a native plant in Europe, is one of the best plants for surviving drought conditions and also feeding insects, such as this Common Buckeye butterfly.  

“An Over-developed World Doesn’t Support Wildlife”

 

I’ve been an observer of the natural world for—literally—as long as I can remember. My very first memory is of walking along the city sidewalk with my older sister as she pushed a baby carriage containing our baby brother. As he is two and half years younger than I am, I know I must have been approaching the age of three as it was springtime—the time of my own birth—and my brother had been born at the end of the previous year. 

 

The city sidewalks were busy with large red-and-black ants going about their own lives as we went about ours. I possess many such memories of my earliest years of life as I seem to have been born with an avid interest in nature.

 

I’m now several decades beyond my youth and I have never lost my fascination with this aspect of life. Consequently, I possess thousands of photos I’ve taken of the natural world that attest to the attraction of nonnative plants to our wildlife. Thus, the push to rid our environment of alien plants is quite concerning to me.   

 

If our world wasn’t so developed (covered over with buildings and roadways) to accommodate humans, we wouldn’t have an abundance of alien plants populating human-disturbed areas (e.g., road margins where the nutritious and friable topsoil has long since been removed and poor subsoil left behind).

 

The reality is that the “intent” of nonnative plants is to keep the environment working as it should. Alien plants fare better in such areas (generally speaking) than native plants that have been here for millennia.

 

Native plants do best in the rich, built-up-over-centuries soil that preceded the arrival of Europeans and folks of many other nationalities, whereas many so-called invasive plants do well in the nutrient-poor soil left over from construction, roadside-grading, winter-salting of roads, highway department-mowing along roads, deposition of vehicle-exhaust chemicals, etc., etc.

 

Thus, we are lucky that humans transported—intentionally or not—alien plants to our land because we would instead have bare ground following development. Unlike the topsoil that is removed or despoiled by development, subsoil can support far fewer organisms (such as bacteria and earthworms), which is the reason it’s less fertile than the soil that would normally sit above it.

 

No matter what town you live in nowadays, you are bound to see development taking place to rob yet more land from the local critters. Consequently, the only way to help wildlife survive is to turn homeowners’ properties into nature-friendly gardens that can well support our local fauna. But do you see that happening? Not much.

 

Instead, you still see most homeowners mowing huge swaths of lawn that not only pollute the environment, but which also may serve only to support our overpopulation of deer—yet another current huge environmental problem. Consider that deer prefer to eat native plants (although they eat many nonnative plants as well) and you have to wonder why there isn’t a big hue-and-cry from native-plant enthusiasts for the government (i.e., the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources) to cut down the deer herd immediately to sustainable levels.

 

After all, how can anyone expect native plants to survive when we have a surplus of native deer to eat them? Yet the popular narrative continues to be that “invasive” plants are the biggest problem facing native plants, even though so-called invasive plants look invasive only because they fill areas cleared of native plants by mankind or deer.

 

This situation—in which the basic problem of too many deer is not addressed first—is very similar to what’s been happening in the Chesapeake Bay since the early 1960s. Throughout all of this time, our scientists have kept replanting native submerged grasses into a body of water that has, all along, remained hostile to the growth of these plants. The fact is that without first reducing the destructive consequences of sediment and nutrient pollution entering the Bay—thanks to what people are doing upstream—native grasses simply cannot possibly thrive there.

 

Likewise, the scientists’ answer to native-plant decline on land is also to tell folks to keep planting more native plants despite the untenable growing conditions of depleted soils, an overabundance of deer, and often, year after year now of drought or near-drought. One could say that a dearth of critical thinking appears to be ongoing in Virginia with no sign of this situation getting better anytime soon.

 

Consider that so-called invasive plants can be downright life-saving. They can survive not only our degraded physical environment, but also drought—both of which have become much more commonly occurring—while still feeding our wildlife. 2026 is the perfect time to be taking this truth into consideration.

“Leatherleaf Mahonia” (Mahonia bealei) is considered “invasive” in Albemarle and Augusta counties (among some other counties in Virginia), even though it’s not that commonly seen. Its flowers feed honeybees foraging in February when they may be the only blooms open, and its fruits feed birds (such as the female Northern Cardinal seen here) in late spring.    

I live in western Albemarle where we’ve received barely 50% of the amount of rain we should have received for the first five months of the year. The plants had continued to look good only because the weather had been on the cool side.

 

But now, as I write this article, we are experiencing hot summertime weather even though summer has not even officially begun and it’s already been 11 days with nary a drop of rain locally. Neither native plants nor animals do well under these conditions, the plants struggling to survive and unable to make fruits or seeds to feed wildlife.

 

On the other hand, nonnative plants often do fine under hot, overly dry conditions. My yard has many perennial Black Knapweed (Centaurea nigra) plants, the flowers of which feed numerous butterflies, bees, and insects of many kinds. Two Glossy Abelia (Abelia x grandiflora) shrubs do the same all summer along with my two Mimosa trees (Albizia julibrissin) that also attract Ruby-throated Hummingbirds.

 

I can’t stress enough that every yard should contain a mix of native and “invasive” plants to help our wildlife to survive. Current environmental conditions simply do not allow for environmental propaganda that is not based in fact.

 

The choice is yours to make. Choose unwisely and we lose many critters forever.

 

 

 

Fighting A Losing Battle against Lawns, Pesticides, Lights, and Attitudes towards Plants and Wildlife

Even as the grass was turning brown (going dormant) and not growing due to a severe drought this past summer, the mowing needlessly continued along my road.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

When I left the house in pre-dawn darkness this morning to exercise, I expected a pleasant, peaceful walk, with the only sounds being that of birds singing and chirping as they awoke. But no, despite the very early hour, what should come roaring up behind me on the roadway but three huge riding lawn mowers, moving from one section of a large property to another. They were still mowing when I returned more than an hour later!

 

Unfortunately, I don’t live far from some extremely wealthy people, all of whom maintain huge amounts of lawn. They mow every single week, regardless of whether the grass even needs it—such as during this recently past summer, when my area suffered the worst drought I’ve lived through in the 45 years I’ve resided in Virginia. The mowing didn’t stop taking place until the overly short grass turned completely brown and was obviously not growing.

 

Compounding the impact of all this mowing is the fact that the less well-off living nearby feel required to mow their own lawns lest they be viewed as socially inferior if they don’t follow the example set for them by the well-heeled. As a result, every house with a lawn along the entire length of my road gets mowed within the span of the same few days.

 

Maintaining a lawn doesn’t contribute to the wellbeing of wildlife. The act of mowing kills animals as it chops anything to bits that gets caught in the blades. Mowing cuts “weed” flower heads, such as dandelions and clovers, immediately depriving pollinators of a source of food. Pesticides are expressly employed for killing organisms living there. And, of course, the air and water pollution as a result of running a small engine impacts humans as well as wildlife.

 

This scenario is repeated over and over throughout the country. Consequently, I’ve come to the conclusion that we will never be able to save the natural world because so many folks continue to maintain an excessive amount of lawn, even in this time of “enlightenment”.

 

Radio and television gardening shows, and gardening columns and books, all exhort people to do away with as much lawn as possible, yet I see no real movement in this direction. Over the past few decades, an increase in the acreage devoted to lawns and the necessary mowing to maintain them has become more widespread, in fact.

 

Adding to my despair is the incredible amount of pesticide usage, not only included in lawn and garden maintenance, but also inside people’s homes. Neighborhood blogs make appallingly clear how often pest control companies are being called by homeowners.

 

If the “problem” is insect-related, you can rest assured poisonous chemicals are going to be employed, often both inside and out. If the “problem” is a mammal or reptile simply visiting the premises or trying to reproduce there, pest control folks will trap and kill it (it’s against the law in Virginia and many states to relocate wild animals), although these companies often tell folks they are not going to dispatch the animals.

Then there are the unnecessary lights. Lamp fixtures burn 24/7 outside numerous homes and barns, not only in my local area but anywhere I travel. Parking lots and buildings are often so illuminated at night that it seems to be daytime.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the ubiquitous amount of lighting in society is responsible for the dearth of moths and thus the dearth of caterpillars (there are far more species of moths than butterflies). Moths are supposed to be mating at night, but instead they are attracted to, and hang around, all the lights out there.

 

When moths don’t procreate, they don’t produce caterpillars, which in turn results in fewer moths. It’s a vicious circle that has been going around for so long that moths are practically nonexistent these days. No amount of native-plant landscaping is going to bring back animals driven to near-extinction by lighting that, rather than diminishing, is increasing along with development.

 

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, the negative attitude of most people towards wildlife is hard to change. Far too much of the populace has become completely intolerant of having wildlife anywhere near where they live, perhaps because ignorance breeds fear, and nowadays few folks have any real understanding of and connection to wildlife. They’ve grown up in a bubble full of people and sanitized surroundings where wildlife is demonized.

 

The lack of knowledge of our natural world even extends to plants, which ends up adding yet more pesticides to the environment and taking away yet more habitat from wildlife as people get rid of what they see as undesirable plants.

 

An entire mythology has been created about so-called invasive plants. The resultant zeal to remove them is yet one more assault upon the environment that harms wildlife. Whether it’s spraying poisons upon plants or cutting them down (or often, both), habitat is destroyed. It’s beyond my comprehension how anyone can see these actions as beneficial to our natural world.

 

I can only conclude that I have been basically fighting a losing battle. After expending much time and effort over the past 28-plus years to get folks to better understand nature, I’m losing heart. However, I am not totally giving up (yet!). I’m working on two books I’d like to see published, and I need time to work further on that front.

 

Therefore, I plan to start posting once a month instead of every two weeks. This post serves as the commentary for the month of October. After that, I’ll post on the first Saturday of each month.

 

 NATURE ADVICE:

 

If you care about the natural world and haven't been “activating”, as I like to say, please start. Far too often, I’ve been a lone voice for the natural world, and that just doesn’t cut it.

 

Politicians and people in charge of natural areas don’t listen to a lone voice in the wilderness; they do listen when many voices speak as one. That’s the very reason the “invasive” plant folks have been able to infiltrate government and local neighborhoods. They’ve gathered a crowd of like-minded cohorts to spread their mythology far and wide, which gives it a semblance of credibility it doesn’t deserve.

 

I hope many of you will take up, or continue, the good fight. It’s vitally important not only for the natural world, but also for the benefit of mankind.

Removing “Invasive” Plants for...More Lawn?!

 

With neither a hint of use by people nor wildlife, huge lawns represent an enormous waste of land.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

While channel-surfing (on December 26, 2020), my husband came across a TV program called “This Old House: Trade School”. The host of this program, Kevin O’Connor, guides the viewers through home improvement projects.

To be honest, I cringe watching these kinds of programs. Whenever I’ve seen these folks engaged in what they call “landscape architecture”, which is typically employed to mean the design of outdoor areas to achieve aesthetic outcomes, I am saddened by the complete disregard for the environmental outcomes of their “beautification” projects.

 

In this case, the man in charge of the landscape project talked to Kevin about removing the shrubby growth at the back edge of the yard to give the owner 25-30% more lawn, even though there was already an abundance of lawn to be seen behind the men. The presence of “invasive” vines growing up some of the trees provided them with a virtuous spin for removal of this wild space; a big deal was made of the vines’ supposedly negative qualities, such as strangling trees, pulling them down, and killing them.

 

This situation exemplifies a very real problem with the push by activist scientists, environmentalists, and government entities to get people to remove supposedly invasive plants. Somehow, these nativists don’t understand that the vines and the other undergrowth cut down provided extremely acceptable habitat for mammals, birds, reptiles, salamanders, and insects and other arthropods.

 

The folks creating the big ruckus over so-called invasive plants also don’t grasp that removal of these plants does not automatically guarantee a replacement of them with native plants growing in a structured manner that will sustain wildlife. As in this case, where lawn was replacing a thicket, we witness yet another disastrous setback for the environment that is already reeling as a result of people’s activities.

 

“Invasive” plants are vilified, as if they have no redeeming qualities, which simply isn’t true. In the TV program, for example, bittersweet and grape vines were seen only as attackers of trees, as if that were oh-so-wrong! But vines exist because they are useful to many animals in many ways.

 

The flowers of these two vines feed pollinators and the resulting fruits feed mammals and birds. If the twining plants did indeed kill some trees, well, bravo! Woodpeckers and wood-boring insects can’t exist without standing dead trees. And reptiles and salamanders can’t exist without logs on the ground. Every bit of this dead wood provides sites for each of these animals to reproduce.

 

I should also point out that it appeared the removal of the woody plants was taking place in late spring or summer, as they were fully leafed out. What that means is that the environment was taking yet another hit as adult animals and their eggs/young in that area were chopped up by a humongous brush-cutting machine.

 

As for the soon-to-be-planted lawn, its presence would increase the burden placed upon the environment. In addition to the loss of habitat, there’s the weekly mowing that might keep the “invasives” from returning (as stated by the man in charge) but which spews small-engine pollution and noise upon the air, land, sea, and people. And, of course, we mustn’t forget all the chemicals applied to grass.

 

It’s never been clear to me why people prefer practically lifeless lawns over the natural environment with all its fascinating critters. If you are lucky enough to own nature-friendly habitat, be bold enough to keep it! You can feel proud that you’ll be helping wildlife that is desperately in need of your assistance.

NATURE ADVICE: 

You can almost effortlessly replace at least some of your lawn area with plants useful to wildlife. Lawn does not persist without constant care. If you leave it to its own devices, other plants will quickly begin displacing most types of lawn grass. Hillsides and slopes are especially good areas to transition away from lawn as they can be dangerous to mow.

It’s fun to identify the plants that show up without any effort on your part, and once you do, it’s your choice as to which ones you want to encourage by pulling out the others.